Fox News Reveals Unnamed Source: White House allows identifying Clarke

TV SPY ^ | 3-26-2004 | David Folkenflik

[T'wit]

"Folkenflik"? I hope it's not catching.

[MEGoody]

"I mean, Fox should say 'occasionally fair and balanced' after putting something like this out, because they violated a serious trust."

Talk about violating a trust. . .Clark is telling bald-faced lies, and the Dems are whining because he got caught doing so.

So, Senator Kerry. . .sounds like you really don't want to find out the truth after all.

[Tanniker Smith]

"background"?? But it wasn't "off the record", was it?
No reason why those comments couldn't be used when someone is publicly speaking the opposite of his prior remarks.

...especially when we are interested in getting to the truth with this committee, not just a lot of posturing.

[John Thornton]

"All of us who have provided background briefings for the press before should beware," said Kerrey, a member of the anti-terrorism panel. "I mean, Fox should say 'occasionally fair and balanced' after putting something like this out, because they violated a serious trust."

If *you* provide a background briefing and *you* decide to later have yourself identified, what's the problem? In this case, the "trust" was with the Administration---and since they decided the "trust" was no longer operative, what's the problem? Oh, it hurt John Kerry for the truth to come out, so that's the real issue, isn't it?

[international american]

That is the REAL issue!

[WHBates]

"All of us who have provided background briefings for the press before should beware," said Kerrey, a member of the anti-terrorism panel.

You know this is really an eye opener. Exactly what his he saying here? That everyone knows bureaucrats and politicians lie? While I certainly know it probably true, what an admission.

[Ann Archy]

Its the White House's perogative to do what they did. It's not Clarke's info...it belongs to the White House.

[OldFriend]

Damned right beware. If you lie you will be exposed.

Perhaps Clarke thought that the administration would protect him......surely he KNEW that Richard Plante, Andrea Mitchell and the person from TIME would protect him. He just didn't count on Jim Angel!!!

[longtermmemmory]

Newt Gingrich was on hanity and said in plain words "Clarke is a liar".

He now is a proven liar.

He is trying to "is 'is'" his lies, HOWEVER the left is eating them up.

The more he talked the more he looked like a pathetic self important nobody.

The release of the statement meant that anyone thinking of doing what Clarke did will be attacked with devastating force. IOW no other clarke's will be forthcomming until 2009, IF even then.

[Eva]

Kerry was insinuating that background briefings are ALL lies. I guess Bob Kerry is just a cynical Clinton flak who assumes that everyone operates like the Clintons.

[Euro-American Scum]

Talk about violating a trust. . .Clark is telling bald-faced lies, and the Dems are whining because he got caught doing so.

Look for more of this as the campaign heats up. Remember, Bush stole the 2000 election to hear the Libs tell it. They despise the man and will do anything to get him out of office. Don't be surprised to see more liar - child molester - alcoholic - serial rapist - Nazi camp guard accusations as part of your everyday, garden-variety, liberal character assassination campaign.

The fact that it's starting this early doesn't surprise me. The fact that Fox News is jumping into it, does.

[lelio]

He now is a proven liar.

As Clarke was employed by the government and said what they wanted to hear in a conference call?

[luvbach1]

Fox didn't violate a trust. They got the restrictions lifted by the same authorities that imposed them in the first place. Dem partisans on the commission are rearing their ugly heads early on.

[MEGoody]

"Fox didn't violate a trust. They got the restrictions lifted by the same authorities that imposed them in the first place."

Exactly. Seems Senator Kerry has a strange idea of what 'violating a trust' means.

[MEGoody]

"The fact that it's starting this early doesn't surprise me. The fact that Fox News is jumping into it, does."

What do you think Fox News has jumped into exactly? They reported factual information, as a news source is supposed to do. I'm confused because you seem to be equating that with liberal slander.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"I mean, Fox should say 'occasionally fair and balanced' after putting something like this out, because they violated a serious trust."

If all the other networks will say, "we will tell any lie for the leftists who are willing to watch you die in their pursuit of wealth and power", then I'm OK with it.

However, no trust was violated in Clarke's case since he was a government employee when he made the comments and it wasn't his decision to hide his identity in the first place.

[TomGuy]

As the Dems watched Jim Angle's report, I hope the Dems had cheese with their whine.

[mwl1]

the argument that we ought to make is not whether Clarke was lying in 2002 or 2004, but rather that he has no integrity -- if he did not believe in what he was peddling in 2002, he should have resigned and blown the whistle then.

this is a very unsubstantial person, propped up by a very lazy and biased media.

that is the angle we should propel

[longtermmemmory]

I am hoping this means Fox News has gone off they "wimp" diet. They were turning into just another network.